Pam Reynolds' NDE.

The “Atheism is Stupid” thread got closed before I had a chance to respond, but the late Pam Reynold’s NDE was mentioned. Here she is in a BBC interview:

Easily Googgled, of course. Now, the atheist/skeptic is going to come along and say that Pam’s experience was “in her head” (even though she was in a state of “brain death” during her NDE), that she was lying (even though she received no publicity, money, etc.), or something else. Or, they will point to alien abductions, OOBEs under the influence of drugs, etc., as “proof” that Pam’s experience was completely natural.

Of course, Pam was not the only one, but why should we believe her experience to be authentic? Well, for one, her testimony and countless others testify to the fact that the conscious self persists independently of the material brain, something which dualism, of course, predicts to be the case.

But it isn’t “scientific,” says the skeptic! And, I would reply, “So what?” If I receive a call on my cell phone from an anonymous stranger who begins singing “Old MacDonald Had a Farm,” how could I ever prove such an event, in fact, happened, especially, if I had never recorded the call? Does the fact that I cannot provide scientific evidence change the reality of the experience? Either the call happened or it did not; either the person sang the song or he/she did not. Either I am lying or I am telling the truth, assuming, of course, that my mental faculties are intact.

“Aha!” the skeptic will say, “Pam Reynold’s brain was not functioning, therefore, we cannot trust anything which she claimed.” However, such presupposes that one’s conscious self has its genesis completely within the brain, and not the immaterial, immortal soul and spirit.

Now, the skeptic will say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Says who? The late Carl Sagan, who borrowed the phrase? If a claim is “good enough,” why not accept it as being representative of a higher reality?

So, “is the glass half-full or half-empty?” By the “Dawkins’ scale,” I am a 1.5 on there being life-after-death. Am I absolutely convinced? No, I am not, but does such even matter? If something has its own objective existence, then it exists. Believing that it does not exist will not cause it “not to exist,” if, in fact, it exists. The converse is true for those things that do not exist.

I believe that Pam Reynolds experienced the conscious separation of her mind from her body, and in particular, her physical brain, and I don’t think that I am a “faith head” (to quote Dawkins) for holding to this POV.

I’m just wondering how closely near-death experiences correlate to one’s particular religious beliefs or non-beliefs. IOW, do Catholics usually have NDE’s that correspond to the tenets of their faith, as do Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.? And do atheists ever have NDE’s and, if so, do their experiences correspond to the faith they may have been raised in and later rejected?

She woke up and resumed using her head, therefore she was not “in a state of brain death” during the expereince. If the brain cells die, the headowner is not coming back.

I am “agnostic” on the NDE issue. There have been a snowstorm of these since 1977, but can never be proven to not be just the dying head giving its owner one last feature before the power goes out.

NDEs are not why I believe in eternal life. Our LORD is.


Her state was equivalent to brain death. The blood was drained her head and her EEG was flat, that is, no brain activity. (It’s all in the video, of course) And yet, she saw her body and was able to describe, at least to the satisfaction of those who were there that day, what was going on.

Of course, it would have been great to have had a computer monitor somewhere in the room that was facing the ceiling which was displaying random alphanumeric text which was being logged. If someone could describe what was on the screen during that time, would you have any disputes about that? Of course, one could always continue to appeal to fraud, etc. to deny such claims.

As the late Carl Sagan used to say, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Still, for me, Pam’s experience and many others like it is “good enough.”

Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads

Anyone who starts such a thread or revives an old thread on those topics will be banned. This ban is planned to be temporary, but there are to be no public or private petitions that the ban be lifted. It will be lifted only when the mod (yours truly) discerns that the atmosphere in this forum has sufficiently cooled.

Effective immediately I will be enforcing the above policy.**

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit